2. The Defendant limited to April 1, 2005 against the Plaintiff:

(a) Each disposition of imposition of each value-added tax stated in the separate sheet of tax amount attached hereto (excluding the disposition of imposition dated February 6, 2006) (excluding the disposition of imposition dated February 6, 2006); and

B. In the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of No. 1, 2004 stated in the attached tax account statement No. 204, revocation is revoked.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Preliminary Claim: Each disposition of value-added tax on April 1, 2005 that the defendant made against the plaintiff on April 1, 2005 (the date of the disposition was specified on April 1, 2005 and April 22, 2005; however, the disposition of April 22, 2005 was a disposition of reduction of value-added tax on April 1, 2004, which was a disposition of reduction of value-added tax on April 1, 2005, it appears to be a clerical error in the date of the disposition, and the other disposition of imposition other than the first period portion on April 1, 2004 was indicated as the primary claim and the conjunctive claim on April 1, 204, but each other disposition of imposition other than the first period portion on the first period on the basis of both the primary claim and the indication are deemed to be an error, and thus, it is deemed that the preliminary claim for value-added tax was made only on the first period of 2004).

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1-1-7, Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 7-1 through 8, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1-1 through 8.

A. On March 23, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a concession agreement on public-private partnership projects of Incheon International Airport and Railroad with the purport that the Plaintiff shall operate the Incheon International Airport in accordance with Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Private Participation in Infrastructure (amended by Act No. 7386, Jan. 27, 2005; hereinafter “Private Investment Act”) and the Korea Railroad shall complete railroad facilities between Seoul Station and Incheon International Airport in accordance with Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Private Participation in Infrastructure (hereinafter “Private Investment Act”), and at the same time, shall operate the Incheon International Airport and Railroad in a manner of acquiring the right to manage and operate the facilities for 30 years instead of devolving the ownership to the State, and shall implement the construction project for railroad facilities, etc. for donation (hereinafter “instant donation project”).

B. On June 29, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 19, 2002 with respect to the construction work of the Kimpo Airport Station and the transfer passage, with respect to the Kimpo Airport Station where the Incheon International Airport Railroad and the subway 9 lines are transferred. On July 19, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Korea National Railroad Agency on September 12, 2002 with eight companies including Nonparty 1, etc. for the implementation of the said civil engineering work. On April 11, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the design, supervision, design, supervision, other services, etc. of the border lines and mountain lines with eight companies including Nonparty 2, etc.

C. The Plaintiff is deemed to be subject to the zero tax rate of value-added tax as stipulated in Article 105(1)3-2 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7322 of Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter “Mediation Special Act”). ② As to the enforcement of the instant consignment business, the Plaintiff is deemed to be subject to the input tax deduction based on the purchase tax invoice for construction services supplied by each contractor, and KRW 48,850,128,460 in total, the value-added tax amount for the first period of January 2001 through 2004 was refunded by filing a refund return including the input tax amount to be deducted at the time of filing a value-added tax return for the pertinent taxable period, and received a refund amount of KRW 48,15,370,098 in total.

D. The Defendant: (a) as a corporation operating passenger transportation services, the Plaintiff did not qualify as zero tax rate under the Special Provision of the Value-Added Tax Act; and (b) issued a tax invoice to the Korea Railroad or Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is a truster directly by the contractor, pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act; (c) on the ground that the instant consignment business constitutes an arrangement for the services to which the provision on consignment under Article 58(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act applies; (d) the Plaintiff cannot be entitled to deduct the purchase tax invoice from its input tax amount (the input tax amount shall be KRW 297,838,660, KRW 60, KRW 161,04, KRW 570, KRW 133,376, KRW 640, KRW 204, KRW 500, KRW 292, KRW 407, KRW 205, KRW 209, KRW 2097.

E. Meanwhile, the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was amended by Act No. 7322 on December 31, 2004, and “urban railway construction services (Article 105(1)3 (e)) directly supplied to a business operator under subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the Private Investment Act” was incorporated into the zero-value tax rate, and Article 23 of the Addenda provides that the above amendment provision shall apply to the business operator who entered into a concession agreement with the competent authority prior to its enforcement from the amount of the value-added tax correction. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received return of KRW 35,129,358,285, total value-added tax paid by the business operator who directly supplied urban railway construction services to the Plaintiff.

F. The Plaintiff did not receive any refund of the input tax amount of KRW 11,70,170,170,350 on the portion of the supply of rolling stock, design, supervision, and business management services, which the tax authority deemed not to be included in urban railroad construction services (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition imposing imposition related to the donation of this case”) from the business entity who supplied the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition imposing imposition related to the donation of this case”), regarding the imposition of KRW 11,70,170,350 on the said portion of the disposition imposing the tax amount of KRW 592,319,870 on the entrusted business.

G. Meanwhile, on February 6, 2006, the head of Seocheon District Tax Office issued a correction and notification of the value-added tax amounting to KRW 130,789,010 for the first term portion for the Plaintiff in 2004. The said increased amount was related to the instant consignment business (the Plaintiff’s place of business was changed from the “Seoul Jongno-gu ○○dong (hereinafter lot number 1 omitted)” to the “Seoul Jongno-gu ○dong (hereinafter lot number 2 omitted)” and the competent tax office changed from the Defendant to the “Seocheon-gu ○dong (hereinafter lot number 2 omitted).

H. On June 3, 2005, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, and filed a request for adjudgment with the Director of the National Tax Tribunal, but on December 12, 2005, the Director of the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the said request for adjudgment.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful as follows. On the first quarter value-added tax in 2004 related to the instant consignment business, the Plaintiff primarily sought revocation of the instant disposition on the premise that the initial disposition on April 1, 2005 (hereinafter “the initial disposition”) was absorption and extinguishment in the instant disposition on February 6, 2006 (hereinafter “the increased amount correction disposition”), and sought revocation of the initial disposition on the premise that the initial disposition on the basis that the initial disposition on the increased amount and the adjusted amount exist as separate taxation, and that other dispositions on the first quarter were revoked.

(1) Violation of the disposition on imposition of donation of this case

㈎ 이 사건 기부채납사업은 구 조특법 제105조 제1항 제3의2호 소정의 영세율 적용대상 사업일 뿐 아니라, 이 사건 기부채납사업은 면세사업인 여객운송사업을 영위하기 위한 목적이 있다 하더라도 여객운송사업과는 별도의 과세사업이므로 매입세액이 공제되어야 한다.

㈏ 구 조특법 제105조 제1항 제3의2호 의 규정은 영세율의 적용대상에 대하여 그 사회간접자본시설이 사용되는 사업이 과세사업인지 면세사업인지 여부를 명시하고 있지 않음에도, 피고가 그 사회간접자본시설을 과세사업에 사용하는 경우에 한하여 영세율이 적용된다고 하는 것은 조세법률주의에 위반된다.

D. Violation of the disposition of imposition related to the entrusted business of this case

㈎ 원고가 이 사건 위·수탁사업을 이행함에 있어 위탁자인 서울특별시나 철도청에 직접 용역을 제공하거나 토목공사를 시행하지 아니하고, 다른 업체를 선정하여 당해 수급업체와 토목공사 및 설계·감리용역 등에 대한 도급계약을 체결하여 수급인을 통하여 위탁자에게 용역을 공급하는 방식으로 하였다.

㈏ 위와 같이 원고와 수급인, 원고와 위탁자 사이에 각각 존재하는 토목공사 등의 용역의 공급은 각각 과세대상 용역임에도, 이 사건 위·수탁거래가 부가가치세법 시행령 제58조 제7항 의 위탁매매의 규정이 준용되는 용역의 주선에 해당한다고 보고 부가가치세법 시행령 제58조 제2항 에 따라 수급인이 직접 위탁자인 철도청이나 서울특별시에 세금계산서를 교부하여야 하므로 원고가 수급인으로부터 매입세금계산서를 교부받아 이를 자신의 매입세액으로 공제받을 수 없다는 전제하에서 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

【Offense of Imposition of Additional Tax

In light of the fact that the customs office has failed to consistently interpret whether the instant construction project is zero-rate tax-free business or duty-free business in relation to the instant disposition of donation and related taxation, and there was a legal controversy as to whether the donation of a social infrastructure to be used in the tax-free business is a zero-rate tax-free business or a duty-free business, and that the Defendant also recognized that the Plaintiff’s tax treatment is legitimate even after conducting a tax investigation on November 2002 that the Plaintiff’s refund of value-added tax was excessive, and refunded the total input tax amount related to the instant donation business, it constitutes a case where there was a justifiable reason for not being able to cause any fault to the Plaintiff, and thus, the imposition

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 3 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Judgment as to the primary claim against the value-added tax for the first quarter of 2004

(1) The Plaintiff sought revocation of the increased value-added tax for the first term period of 2004 on the premise that the original disposition was absorption and extinction of the increased disposition. In a case where it is based on the legal doctrine of the absorption theory, the said disposition is deemed to be the head of Seomancheon Tax Office who made the increased disposition, and the defendant standing to revoke the said disposition is also against the head of Seomancheon Tax Office. As such, this part of the lawsuit in the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it is filed against the non-qualified person.

D. Meanwhile, Article 44 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the determination or correction of the tax base and amount of national tax shall be made by the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of payment of the national tax at the time of the disposition." Accordingly, with respect to the initial disposition, the defendant, the superintendent of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of payment of the national tax at the time of the disposition, and with respect to the revised disposition, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the district tax office, as seen above. If the initial disposition and the revised disposition are about a single taxation unit and the disposition are identical to the disposition authority, the court must determine the tax base and amount of tax as a whole on the basis that the initial disposition and the revised disposition are all combined with the previous Supreme Court precedents concerning the scope of the adjudication of the tax lawsuit at the time of the disposition. However, if the subject of the disposition are different, it cannot be deemed that the initial disposition are separate from each other, and a claim for the preliminary disposition concerning the value-added tax at the time of the first disposition at the time of 204.

D. Claim on the imposition of the remainder of the value-added tax for the first term portion in 2004 and determination on the preliminary claim on the value-added tax for the first term portion in 2004

(1) Whether the disposition of donation of this case was unlawful

㈎ 구 조특법 제105조 제1항 제3의2호 의 적용대상인지 여부

1) According to Article 105 (1) 3-2 of the former Special Assistance Act, the zero tax rate shall apply to the value-added tax on the supply of “infrastructure under the same Act or its construction services supplied to the State in a manner prescribed by Article 4 (1) 1 of the same Act,” and therefore, the construction services in this case shall first be deemed to be an infrastructure under the Private Investment Act or its construction services.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 (c) of the Public-Private Partnership Act provides that "urban railroads under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Urban Railroad Act" are "urban railroads" and Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Urban Railroad Act provides that "traffic facilities and means of transportation by tracks, such as railroads, bus rails, etc., constructed and operated in urban traffic zones in order to ensure smooth flow of urban traffic."

As seen earlier, the instant donation project is a construction project for railroad facilities, including the provision of rolling stock, design, supervision, business management services, etc., and the urban railroad under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Urban Railroad Act includes not only railroad transportation facilities but also means of transportation. Thus, the construction project for railroad facilities, including the provision of rolling stock, such as design, supervision, business management services, etc., including the provision of rolling stock, constitutes an urban railroad or its construction services for the urban railroad. Accordingly, the instant donation project constitutes an infrastructure under the Private Investment Act or the construction services for its facilities.

2) Next, we examine whether the instant donation acceptance business is subject to zero-rate tax rate under Article 105(1)3-2 of the former Special Provision Act.

On the other hand, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the law, unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret without reasonable grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du9537, Jan. 24, 2003, etc.).

However, the fact that the Plaintiff is implementing the donation project of this case by the method of operating the Incheon International Airport Railroad Business instead of distributing its ownership to the State in accordance with Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Private Investment Act is as seen above, and since the donation project of this case constitutes an infrastructure under the Private Investment Act or a construction project of such infrastructure, it shall be deemed that the donation project of this case is subject to zero tax rate prescribed in Article 105 (1) 3-2 of the former Special Act. Unless it is provided that the operation business after the donation is limited to a taxable business, it shall not be deemed that the application of zero tax rate vary depending on the nature of the operation business after the donation (On the other hand, the donation project of this case shall not be deemed as an incidental service of passenger transportation business of this case, and it is necessary to treat it separately since it is the other party of the supply of the passenger transportation business after donation and the timing of supply, it shall not be deemed as an independent business after the amendment of Article 105 (1) 3-2 of the former Special Act.

㈏ 따라서 이 사건 기부채납사업이 영세율 적용대상이 아니라는 전제에서 이 사건 기부채납사업 관련 매입세액 중 11,700,170,350원을 공제하지 않고 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

D. Whether the disposition related to the above and the entrusted business of this case is unlawful

㈎ 원고가 위탁자인 철도청 또는 서울특별시를 위하여 용역의 공급을 주선한 것인지 여부

(i) the meaning of good faith in the supply of services;

Since the contract for the supply of services refers to a legal act under his own name with another person's account, the contract for the provision of services is a type of delegation under the Civil Act, which is a contract for the acceptance of entrustment such as the contract for the provision of services for the truster who is the other party to the contract for the provision of services (i.e., the contract for the provision of services is a type of delegation under the Civil Act (i.e., the contract for the provision of services is a contract for the provision of services only to receive the entrustment fee from the truster, and the ultimate loss is not borne with respect to the contract for the provision of services). (ii)

2) Whether the entrustment contract of this case is an arrangement contract for the supply of services

A) Facts of recognition

The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence No. 14, Gap evidence No. 15, and Gap evidence No. 17.

(1) The main contents of the agreement on the consignment business concluded between the Plaintiff and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "agreement") shall be as follows:

The purpose of this Convention is to prescribe the methods and trade-related matters, etc. in order to ensure that the construction works (civil engineering works) falling under the category of civil engineering works in need of concurrent construction with the airport railway construction works among the portion of subway 9 lines promoted by the Seoul Metropolitan Government (Article 1) are implemented to the plaintiff (Article 1).

The Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall promptly complete the execution design of integrated stations and transfer routes so as not to impede the opening of airport railroads as determined by the concession agreement and deliver them to the Korea National Railroad (Article 4(1)). The Plaintiff and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City may adjust a project implementation plan through mutual consultation according to the progress of construction (Article 4(3)).

In principle, the amount of time for budget relief or entrusted construction costs shall not be changed: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases falling under Article 7 (Article 5 (2)). The plaintiff shall separately execute and manage all personnel expenses, expenses, and other incidental expenses due to the implementation of the project entrusted by Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Article 5 (5)).

㉣ 서울특별시는 위·수탁사업이 실시협약에 정한 기간 내에 완료될 수 있도록 사업비를 확보한다(제6조 제1항). 서울특별시는 원고가 시행한 위·수탁 공사비용 및 부대비용에 대하여 기성검사를 완료한 후 철도청을 경유하여 자금 지급 요청시 지급하고 사업비 확정시 정산한다(제6조 제3항). 원고는 준공(부분준공을 포함한다) 후 3개월 이내에 사업비를 정산하고 잔액이 발생 시는 즉시 이를 반환하여야 한다. 원고가 사업시행에 따른 사업비를 확보하고 공사비를 지급할 의무를 부담한다(제6조 제4항).

Article 19 of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party, Article 64 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 74 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act shall apply to the adjustment of project costs according to price fluctuations (Article 7(1)). The provisions of Article 19 of the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party and Article 65 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall apply to the time when project costs are adjusted due to a request by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City or due to a change in the scale of entrusted projects (Article 7(

The management of the material and material demand project shall be conducted under the Plaintiff’s responsibility based on the contract concluded by the Plaintiff, special specifications, general conditions of civil engineering works, and construction specifications, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall appoint an employee in charge of cooperation in the performance of the project and cooperate in the performance of the project (Article 9(3)). The damages incurred to Seoul Special Metropolitan City due to the violation of this Convention, such as delay of construction due to

The completion of each plant shall be carried out jointly by participating in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City under the responsibility of the Plaintiff, and, if there is a legitimate request for correction by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the completed facilities shall be transferred to Seoul Special Metropolitan City upon completion of the work (Article 12(1)). Upon completion of the work, the Plaintiff shall transfer the completed facilities to Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The acquisition and transfer of facilities shall be deemed completed at the time the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the Plaintiff inspected whether the facilities are abnormal and the operation of the facilities are interfered with, and the normal completion of the work shall be deemed to have been completed at the time of completion of the work:

In connection with the implementation of civil engineering works in accordance with this Convention, the plaintiff shall be liable for damages incurred to third parties as well as civil and criminal liability for cases and accidents arising in connection with the implementation of civil engineering works (Article 14).

(2) The main contents of the agreement on consignment and consignment projects concluded between the Plaintiff and the Korea National Railroad are as follows:

The period of the project of the Corporation shall be three months from the commencement date of the design service to the completion date of the service.

The obligations of the Korea National Railroad and the Plaintiff for the implementation of the main project of the Republic of Korea are as follows (Article 4).

1. Obligations of the Korea National Railroad;

- Bearing of entrusted project costs

- Performance of all duties, such as supervision and management of design and design and supervision services;

2. The plaintiff's duty

- The work administration and fund management of the Project, such as the contract, availability and completion of the Project;

-Management of the parts requiring consultation, such as the project and joint use of the Incheon International Airport Railroad Project and the parts related to the implementation of the project;

The project cost for the instant project shall be the amount of the service cost under Article 2(1) to be notified by the Korea National Railroad (Article 5(1)). The project cost shall, in principle, not be changed: Provided, That the change of the design due to the request by the Korea National Railroad or the change of the project plan may be adjusted in accordance with the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party and relevant regulations (Article 5(2)).

㉣ 원고는 매 분기별 설계용역에 필요한 자금계획을 수립하여 철도청에 요청하고 철도청은 자금집행 계획을 확인하여 원고의 현금 계좌에 납입하여야 한다. 다만, 철도청의 예산 사정으로 사업비 확보가 곤란할 경우 상호 협의하여 납입 기간을 연장할 수 있다(제7조 제1항). 제7조 제1항의 자금은 원고의 사업 예금계좌와 별도로 예금계좌를 개설 운용하여야 하며, 예치된 자금은 설계용역을 수행하는 계약상대자에게 철도청의 확인후 선금, 기성금, 준공금으로 지불하여야 한다(제7조 제2항).

When the "services" is completed, the plaintiff shall transfer the results of the "service" to the Korea Railroad, and the rights and responsibilities for the results shall be vested in the Korea Railroad (Article 12).

③ On the other hand, on November 21, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the change of consignment with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and at that time, agreed to have the entrusted construction cost KRW 37.5 billion based on the working design performance.

④ The Plaintiff entered into a direct contract with the contractor or the construction company as the ordering person with respect to the construction work for light lines, the design and supervision service business for light lines, the removal service business for light lines, the removal from the Kimpo Airport, and the transfer route construction work. Under each of the above contracts, the Plaintiff agreed that the compensation for delay that the contractor shall pay to the Plaintiff with respect to the compensation for delay shall not be less than the compensation for delay that the Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff in relation to the construction work.

⑤ The Plaintiff entered into a contract with 8 companies, including Nonparty 1, for the performance of an entrustment contract with Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and entered into the contract with 46.2 billion won. The amount of the provisional contract is 46.2 billion won, which shall be settled according to the share of construction cost agreed between the Plaintiff and Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The Plaintiff did not enter into an agreement on the adjustment of project cost due to

6) The Plaintiff concluded each service contract with eight companies, including Nonparty 2 Co., Ltd. for the performance of an entrustment contract with the Korea Railroad, and confirmed the contract amount as a certain amount, but agreed not to adjust the contract amount due to price fluctuation.

B) Determination

① Entrustment contract between the Plaintiff and Seoul Special Metropolitan City

In light of the following circumstances known in the above facts, the entrustment contract between the plaintiff and Seoul Special Metropolitan City is a contract rather than a delegation contract.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 9(3) and (5), 12(1), 12(2), and 14 of the Convention, the purpose of the service provided by the Plaintiff to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City is the delivery of the service performance and the Plaintiff shall be fully liable for damages arising during construction delay and construction (contributing that the Plaintiff bears the risk of considerable damages). Such contractual obligations are only consistent with the contract and are not permissible under the contract for the service supply contract, which is merely a delegation contract.

(2) In the process of performing the entrusted construction project in this case, the plaintiff is not liable for damages caused by the causes attributable to the construction project in the process of selecting the third construction business operator and concluding the construction project. The plaintiff is paid the entrusted construction cost in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party, but the contracting company shall pay the construction cost that is not reflected in the price fluctuation, so the contracting company shall pay the construction cost that is not reflected in the price fluctuation. Thus, the plaintiff shall be considered as the final owner of the profit and loss within a reasonable extent according to the price fluctuation.

According to Article 4 of the Convention, the plaintiff is not to supply construction works to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and it is not meaningful to determine the legal status of the plaintiff because the Seoul Special Metropolitan City is responsible for design.

㉣ 서울특별시가 사업비를 궁극적으로 부담한다고 하더라도 서울특별시가 사업비의 실질적인 부담주체로서 부담하는 것이므로 원고가 서울특별시에 건설용역을 공급하는 것으로 볼 수 있다.

The contract amount is not specified in the above agreement, but the contract amount has not yet been determined at the time of conclusion of the agreement, and the contract amount has not yet been determined at the time of conclusion of the agreement. On November 21, 2006, after the execution design was finalized, the contract was prepared to stipulate the construction cost.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the contractor on the premise of the instant project and the entrusted project, the terms of the typical contract, and that the contract for delay that the contractor shall pay to the Plaintiff with respect to the rate of the liquidated damages for delay is not less than the liquidated damages that the Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff in relation to the project in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff and Seoul Special Metropolitan City may be deemed to have entered into a contract separate

(2) Entrustment contracts between the Plaintiff and the Korea Railroad

In light of the following circumstances known in the above facts, the entrustment contract between the plaintiff and Seoul Special Metropolitan City is a contract rather than a delegation contract.

According to Article 12 of the Convention, in the event that a contractor fails to complete the service performance due to his/her nonperformance, the Plaintiff is liable for failure to deliver the service performance (in conclusion, the Plaintiff bears the risk of damage to a considerable extent). Therefore, such contractual obligations are consistent with the contract.

(2) In the process of the execution of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff shall not be deemed a person acting on behalf of the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff is liable for failing to deliver the service outcomes within the project period due to the nonperformance of the contractor’s obligation under Articles 5(1), 5(2), and 12 of the above Convention. In addition, in the process of the execution of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff shall be paid construction costs that reflect the price fluctuations in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party, but the contractor shall pay the construction costs that reflect the price fluctuations in the relevant provisions of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party, and thus, the contractor shall pay the construction costs that reflect the price fluctuations in the process of the instant construction project, and thus, the final owner of the profit and loss shall be within a considerable extent depending on whether the price fluctuations have occurred or delay in the

The plaintiff can be seen as the subject of design and supervision services in that the Korea Railroad performs the supervisory duties of design and supervision services, not in itself in the above convention. In the contract relationship, the plaintiff's exercise of the right of direction on the work to the contractor is permitted in the contract relationship, and it does not serve as the basis for the plaintiff's performance of supervisory duties by the Korea Railroad.

㉣ 사업비관리계좌 별도 개설 및 지출 확인을 받도록 한 것도, 철도청이 도급사업을 감독하거나 사업의 진행상황을 점검하기 위한 목적으로 그와 같이 할 수도 있는 것이어서 원고가 알선자라는 지위에 있다는 근거가 되는 않는다.

㉣ 위 협약서에서 도급금액이 명시되어 있지는 않으나 협약서 제5조 제1항에 의하면 철도청이 원고에게 별도로 통보를 하였기 때문으로 이와 같은 처리가 도급계약의 성질에 반하지 않는다.

㈏ 소결

Ultimately, the entrustment contract of this case cannot be deemed to be a delegation contract, and the contract is deemed to be a contract. Therefore, the disposition of this case on the premise that Article 58 (7) of the Value-Added Tax Act should be applied on the premise that the plaintiff cannot receive a tax invoice from the contractor under his/her name because the plaintiff is merely a broker for the provision of services.

Abstract Whether the penalty tax imposition is unlawful

The imposition of the penalty tax in this case is divided into urban railway construction services and non-urban railway construction services and additional tax related to the entrusted business. As seen earlier, since the donation business in this case is subject to zero tax rate because it falls under social infrastructure and construction services prescribed in Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Private Investment Act, the imposition of the penalty tax in this case is unlawful. Since the entrusted business in this case cannot be deemed to be a contract for the provision of services, the plaintiff can receive the input tax deduction after receiving a tax invoice from the contractor in his/her own name. Thus, the imposition of penalty tax in relation to each disposition of imposition is unlawful on a different premise, and thus, the imposition of penalty tax in this case is unlawful without

Accordingly, among the disposition of this case, the portion equivalent to 11,70,170,350 won in total, except for the amount of the value-added tax paid by the business owner who directly supplied urban railway construction services by the plaintiff to him, 35,129,358,285 won in total, and the portion equivalent to 529,319,870 won in non-deduction of the input tax amount related to the entrusted business in this case, and the imposition of additional tax related to each disposition of this case must be revoked illegally. The amount of tax claimed for revocation is identical to the corresponding item in the calculation statement of the tax amount in attached Form 2 in 204, and the remaining imposition disposition except for the portion for the first period in 204 is identical to the corresponding item in the calculation statement of tax amount in attached Form 1.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the main claim against the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2004 among the lawsuit in this case is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the remainder of the claim and the preliminary claim against the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2004 are accepted for each of the reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

【Omission of Tax Invoice】

Judges Jeong Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)